US Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) is no stranger to criticism from his own party. He recently broke from the party line on the war powers vote, calling it “empty sloganeering.” He is open to Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s nomination as new DHS secretary. 

He has even expressed his support for voter ID while the SAVE Act (Now the SAVE America Act) is up for consideration, though he won’t vote for the bill “in its current state.” This angered many Republicans and Trump supporters who thought they had an ally on the other side of the aisle.

After all, just a month ago Fetterman criticized leaders of his own party for calling the SAVE Act “Jim Crow 2.0.”

This, however, was before more was added to the legislation – including a ban on mail-in voting (except in some cases) and provisions focused on transgenderism. Fetterman called President Donald Trump’s criticism of mail-in voting, in particular, “ridiculous.” 

"It's safe. Some of the best examples in the country are from red states like Ohio and Florida," he said.

Fetterman noted that the SAVE America Act is essentially dead in the Senate, which the chamber’s majority leader, John Thune, also indicated last week. It doesn’t have the support to break the filibuster, something Trump wants to end.

However, this is not likely to happen.

Republicans have long supported the filibuster, especially when they were in the minority. Now the party is divided on it. Fetterman said he and some other Democrats ran in 2022 to put an end to the filibuster, but now they defend it.

"Now, we find ourselves as Democrats, we love the filibuster, we cling to that," Fetterman said.

But the hypocrisy doesn’t just end at the filibuster. Fetterman also pointed out that Republicans in Pennsylvania demanded Act 77 in 2019, which legalized mail-in voting in the state with bipartisan support. 

"The Republicans in Pennsylvania pushed for mail-in voting,” he said. But then, in 2021, a group of state Republican lawmakers sued to reverse the very law they supported after Trump declared his opposition to mail-in voting.

In the latest episode of the Independent Voter Podcast, the hosts discussed how the SAVE America Act is an example of how partisan lawmakers take an 80-20 issue and add unnecessary things to score points with their base but kill the bill.

Fetterman has also pointed out that voter ID is one of these issues, citing an August 2025 Pew Research survey that found 83% of American voters support or are okay with requiring photo ID to vote.

So why not just have a voter ID bill? Republicans would still have the support of Fetterman and a few other moderate Democrats. 

It is a stark contrast to the California voter ID initiative that will likely appear on the November ballot this year. The sponsors of the initiative submitted over 1.3 million signatures a month ahead of the deadline to show just how much support it has.

And as Cara McCormick explains on IVN, the initiative is strictly a voter ID proposal. All it requires is a government-issued ID, like a driver’s license, to vote in person or the last 4 digits of an ID for mail-in voting.

California’s Voter ID Initiative is Way More Chill Than Trump’s SAVE Act

A proposed California ballot initiative would amend the state constitution to add an initiative that aims to “deter and detect voter fraud by maintaining accurate voter registration records and confirming eligibility to vote...”

Independent Voter NewsCara Brown McCormick

That’s it. There is nothing about birth certificates. There is nothing about mail-in voting. There is nothing about transgenderism. Just a carefully written voter ID initiative on an issue that has broad public support, even among Democrats.

The soundbites around the SAVE America Act may be good for fundraising, but the bill itself does nothing to move the needle forward – which is the case for so many issues in the United States. It exists to rally the base, not to actually pass.

In Other Reform News...

Oklahoma Killed an Open Primary Initiative – Now Lawmakers Want to Lock Closed Primaries into the Constitution

A citizen-led initiative to implement a nonpartisan all-voter and all-candidate open primary failed to get certified for the Oklahoma ballot, and now some state lawmakers are pushing an initiative that asks voters to make closed primaries a permanent feature in elections.

The Yes on SQ 836 campaign for a nonpartisan primary was informed by the secretary of state that too many of its nearly 210,000 petitions were invalid. The bulk of the signatures were tossed because the petitions failed to match 4 out of 5 data points in the voter registration file.

Many of these petitions could have been signed by eligible Oklahoma voters that simply made a mistake when filling out the required fields. But the rule that disqualified them (put in place in 2024), allowed the state to reject over 57,000 signatures on strict technicalities.

If approved by voters, State Question 836 would have amended the state constitution to implement a nonpartisan open primary system in which all voters and all candidates, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, participate on a single ballot.

The top two vote-getters would then move on to the general election. Similar systems are in place in California and Washington and recent polling from Independent Voter Project found California voters are satisfied with it.

For California Candidates Courting Independent Voters, These Reforms Could Win A Lot of Votes

California independent voters are not a monolith. They fall across the political spectrum and hold diverse opinions on a variety of social and political issues. But one thing that unites them is a shared belief that California needs more choice elections.

Independent Voter NewsShawn Griffiths

This is especially the case for independent voters, who would otherwise be denied a chance to cast a ballot for the candidate they prefer under the state’s old closed primary model – a model that is in place in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma uses semi-closed primaries, which means it is up to the parties to decide whether or not they will allow independent voters to participate on their primary ballot. In 2026, no political party with a primary will allow independents to participate.

This includes the Democratic Party, which is a departure from recent elections. Party leaders said they intended to keep their primaries open this cycle, but the state claimed they did not file the proper paperwork in time.

Despite asserting that the party would pursue its legal options, it has yet to file suit or take any action to open its primaries to independents. Instead, the Sooner State Party has filed suit asserting that independent voters should not be shut out of elections funded by taxpayers.

The ball is in the Oklahoma Legislature’s court to put its own initiative on the ballot should it decide to act. State Rep. Eric Roberts of Oklahoma City introduced a ballot question that would ask voters to make the state’s closed primary system permanent. 

The proposal has already passed out of committee.

“We’re just making sure that any recognized party in the state of Oklahoma has the ability to have a candidate in the general election,” Roberts said during a committee hearing.

Roberts twists the narrative to be about choice in a state in which most elections are decided in uncontested or noncompetitive primary elections.

A Top Two nonpartisan primary would have likely resulted in a number of elections in deep red Oklahoma advancing two Republicans to the general election, which is what Roberts is focused on with his counter proposal.

However, new research published by Cambridge University points out that despite Top Two advancing two Democrats or Two Republicans in some elections in California, it has made many districts more competitive.

In the case of same-party general elections, the question becomes about which Republican or which Democrat wins in a district that would otherwise have been a landslide victory for the majority party.

When put in this perspective, it changes the way people see choice and competition. It also changes the way candidates have to think about how they campaign because simply relying on their party’s base isn’t enough anymore.

They have to make clear distinctions between themselves and other members of their party if they want to win. And voters registered outside their party have just as impactful a vote in the general election.

But the Top Two nonpartisan primary is not going to be on the November ballot in Oklahoma, so what is the point of Roberts’ initiative now? Its only function would be to enshrine a belief in the state constitution that independent voters don’t matter.

The Independent Voter Project, which authored Top Two in California, recognizes the importance of more choice in elections. This is why the organization now says it is time to “reform the reform” with a Top 5 system using ranked choice voting in the general election.

This way, parties in the political minority have a path to getting a candidate on the November ballot without sacrificing the voting rights of independent voters. This means not only being able to vote in taxpayer-funded elections but being able to choose the candidates they want.

In Other Open Primaries News…

• Paul Rieckhoff appeared on The Late-Night Show with Stephen Colbert and talked about how the Iran War is exacerbating cynicism among voters with both parties. He also made the case for an election model that doesn’t force voters or candidates to “pick a side.” Despite misconceptions about the political leanings of members of the military and veterans, like the rest of the country, about half of this group identify as independent. They always put country over party when they serve, he asserts, so why force them to “pick a side” when they’re out?
• The better elections group, Open Primaries, hosted a virtual discussion with Maryland Delegate Lily Qi, who has sponsored a bill to bring open primaries to her state. Qi’s bill would implement semi-open partisan primaries, which means registered party members have to vote in their respective party’s primary, but independent voters would be able to choose between a Republican and Democratic primary ballot. Her argument is that this a critical civil rights issue as many people in social demographic minorities are registered unaffiliated with a political party. And because they are, they have no say in taxpayer-funded primary elections. Qi’s bill had a committee hearing on February 11.
• A bill that would open primary elections to independent voters in Delaware advanced out of committee on March 11. Voters registered unaffiliated with a political party make up 34% of the state’s registered voter population – a growth that shattered expectations of organizations that have followed registration trends over the last few years. They make up the second largest voting bloc in the state, and yet they cannot participate in primary elections unless they sacrifice their preference not to affiliate with a political party.
• A bill in Hawaii to implement a nonpartisan Top Two primary is still making its way through the legislative process. 

Maine Attorney General Sides Against Voters, Legislature by Opposing Ranked Choice Voting Expansion

On April 1, the Maine Supreme Court will once again hear arguments on whether ranked choice voting can be used in gubernatorial and state legislative general elections after the legislature passed a bill allowing it.

However, Attorney General Aaron Frey is asking the court to block it.

For context, ranked choice voting (which gives voters the option to rank candidates on the ballot in order of preference) is used in gubernatorial and legislative primary elections, all US House and Senate elections – even in presidential elections.

It isn’t used in gubernatorial and legislative general elections because the Maine Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion in 2017 that it couldn’t be used in these elections because of a plurality clause in the constitution.

This followed voter approval of ranked choice voting at the state level in 2016.

Put simply, because the constitution says elections need to be decided by the person with the most votes (even if they don’t have a majority), that means a reform that requires a majority winner cannot be allowed.

The Maine Legislature has taken action to resolve this constitutional dispute by passing LD 1666, which attempts to give state voters the complete voting reform they said they wanted not once, but twice at the ballot box (in 2016 AND 2018).

The bill uses a series of terminology changes to ensure ranked choice voting aligns with constitutional law for these elections, but the Maine attorney general argues that it is not enough.

"The three provisions of the Maine Constitution governing (legislative and gubernatorial elections) are not philosophical treatises; they set forth concrete procedures for how elections are to be administered and determined,” wrote Frey in a 34-page brief. 

“Ranked-choice voting is either consistent with those procedures or it is not. Legislation like L.D. 1666, which changes the terminology used to describe the process without changing how the process works, cannot make the unconstitutional constitutional.”

If the argument is for procedural consistency, then the question must be asked: Is the current limited application of ranked choice voting procedurally consistent?

Ranked choice voting’s use in state primary and all federal elections has been ruled or determined to be constitutional. Yet, it cannot be used for two types of state general elections because of an advisory opinion.

This creates an inconsistency in the procedure and administration of elections, even though Maine citizens back the reform, have indicated their support twice at the polls, and now the legislature has approved a law (twice) to align ranked choice voting’s use with the constitution.

It is worth noting that the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed its state’s use of ranked choice voting (approved by voters in 2020 as part of a nonpartisan Top Four system) despite the Alaska Constitution also having a plurality clause.

Since the Alaska ruling happened after 2017, supporters of LD 1666 argue it makes a stronger case for ranked choice voting expansion.

Opponents of the reform are jumping on Frey’s stance by saying, “See, even this Democratic attorney general argues ranked choice voting is unconstitutional.” But Democratic state officials have a history of opposing ranked choice voting too.

Gov. Janet Mills was one of the main reasons LD 1666, which was initially approved in 2025, was kept in the legislature until it passed again in 2026. Democratic congressional candidate and former secretary of state Matthew Dunlap not only opposed ranked choice voting, but tried to prevent its use in 2018. 

It is not uncommon for Democrats to oppose voting reform when they see a potential threat to their own power or path to victory. Ranked choice voting means candidates have to broaden their appeal in large fields. Thus, it requires more from candidates to be competitive.

Republican leaders oppose ranked choice voting in Alaska. Democratic leaders oppose it in Colorado. There were members of the Democratic establishment in New York City and Washington, DC, who opposed voter-approved ranked choice voting in their cities.

It isn’t a partisan reform. Both parties have used it. Members of both parties have supported it. But one thing reformers can attest to is that while voting reform is not a partisan issue, rejection of anything that seeks to improve the status quo is bipartisan.

For the parties, it is about who benefits. Or, at least, who benefits in their calculus. It doesn’t matter what voters want. What matters is who is in control. And it wouldn’t be a big surprise if Frey has his sights on a future gubernatorial run – just like his predecessor, Janet Mills.

In Other Ranked Choice Voting News…

• A business advocacy group, Opportunity DC, has launched a voter education campaign for ranked choice voting ahead of its first implementation in the city. Since its passage in 2024 by nearly three-quarters of voters, the DC City Council threatened to hold up reform, so there are many voters who don’t know RCV will be used this year. While the Council ultimately funded RCV elections, it refused to move forward with open primaries – which was part of the same reform package approved by voters.
• While many states in the Midwest have banned the use of ranked choice voting, like Indiana and Ohio (the most recent states to do so), a couple of lawmakers have introduced a bill in Wisconsin to adopt the reform for federal, state, and local elections. “It is a system that encourages positive campaigns, ensures that winners have the support of a majority of voters, and allows more candidates to run without being seen as a waste of a vote or a spoiler,” said State Sen. Mark Spreitzer.
• A bill in Connecticut, SB 386, would allow local governments in the state to adopt ranked choice voting for primaries, party caucuses, and some municipal elections. It has cleared the Senate Government Administration and Elections Committee and on the day it did, a group of municipal leaders sent a letter to Gov. Ned Lamont and legislative leaders expressing their support. “This is a practical, incremental reform that respects local control,” the letter states. “It gives communities the freedom to strengthen democratic participation in ways that best reflect their residents’ needs.”